ACCforum: Recent CA case - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Recent CA case

#1 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 785
  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 12 April 2019 - 07:06 AM

Just a recent CA case.

Grant

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7780
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 12 April 2019 - 03:55 PM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 12 April 2019 - 07:06 AM, said:

Just a recent CA case.

Grant


Hi Grant

This is a interesting case and shows clearly not to stuff the timeliness of your court cases around.

I have chucked Sect 54 of the ACC Act at them often and especially to get my interest, if the Judge had of used this point of timeliness against ACC, they would have been toast. BUT as normal for the day, 2004/05, they completely ignored the significance of it and never allowed my interest on b/d w/c.

I believe the appellant was rightly accused by the Judge of holding up the case, as well as others needing to have those assiting her of being too busy to get a reply to them before Xmas. A few lines on a piece of paper is not too much to ask.

I have been busy collecting medical evidence of Wrongful action or Treatment Injury. No luck yet and only one specalist left, to try and find reason for medical reaction. Will shortly ask for all monies paid by myself and try to get cover under the fact that I was wrongfully diagnosed 22 years ago. Have to get the bunnies lined up in a row.

mini
0

#3 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7780
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 12 April 2019 - 03:59 PM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 12 April 2019 - 07:06 AM, said:

Just a recent CA case.

Grant

0

#4 User is offline   Grant-Mac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 785
  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 13 April 2019 - 07:47 AM

View PostMINI, on 12 April 2019 - 03:55 PM, said:

Hi Grant

This is a interesting case and shows clearly not to stuff the timeliness of your court cases around.

I have chucked Sect 54 of the ACC Act at them often and especially to get my interest, if the Judge had of used this point of timeliness against ACC, they would have been toast. BUT as normal for the day, 2004/05, they completely ignored the significance of it and never allowed my interest on b/d w/c.

I believe the appellant was rightly accused by the Judge of holding up the case, as well as others needing to have those assiting her of being too busy to get a reply to them before Xmas. A few lines on a piece of paper is not too much to ask.

I have been busy collecting medical evidence of Wrongful action or Treatment Injury. No luck yet and only one specalist left, to try and find reason for medical reaction. Will shortly ask for all monies paid by myself and try to get cover under the fact that I was wrongfully diagnosed 22 years ago. Have to get the bunnies lined up in a row.

mini


Indeed.

However, those of you using lawyers/advocates, just remind them occasionally to check that they have submitted all that needs to be submitted. While this should be done as a matter of course, with District Court dates taking well over a year to obtain currently, caseloads build up and it is easy to forget something when there has been no movement on that case for 6 months or more. Your own case will always be at the front of your mind, but if I have a caseload of 80+, it is very helpful to receive an email reminding me of your particular case.

Re. medical evidence: it will be hard to get a doctor to implicate another doctor on any action taken that could be construed as negligent.

Grant
0

#5 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9054
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 13 April 2019 - 09:04 AM

Medical evidence should speak for itself

A specialsts factual report in conjunction with the reading of scans, ultrasounds, mri, ct, blood tests etc is the "Medico Legal Report"

An opinion of an acc assessor, who has not clinically examined the client, doesnt have copies of the medical evidence to compare and does not have the qualifications to make an informed report is not primary evidence

An acc assessor cannot change a clients treatment plan, prescribe meds or pain relief and can only "advise" the "corporation"

Acc assessors "examinations" are usually perfunctory and no where meet the standards that a Specialist would put you through

Also be aware, acc are notorious at leaving out medico legal reports from bundles of documents

That is the singular most important set of documents to check are in the bundles, PRIOR to court

If you have irrefutable medical evidence of the injuries, avoid "doctor shopping" you do not need another unqualified "opinion"

You are correct in that one doctor will not critisize another, its a pity as assessors are creating harm, and there is no need for opinion when factual reports meet legal standard
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9828
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 April 2019 - 10:20 AM

View PostBrucey, on 13 April 2019 - 09:04 AM, said:

Medical evidence should speak for itself

A specialsts factual report in conjunction with the reading of scans, ultrasounds, mri, ct, blood tests etc is the "Medico Legal Report"

An opinion of an acc assessor, who has not clinically examined the client, doesnt have copies of the medical evidence to compare and does not have the qualifications to make an informed report is not primary evidence

An acc assessor cannot change a clients treatment plan, prescribe meds or pain relief and can only "advise" the "corporation"

Acc assessors "examinations" are usually perfunctory and no where meet the standards that a Specialist would put you through

Also be aware, acc are notorious at leaving out medico legal reports from bundles of documents

That is the singular most important set of documents to check are in the bundles, PRIOR to court

If you have irrefutable medical evidence of the injuries, avoid "doctor shopping" you do not need another unqualified "opinion"

You are correct in that one doctor will not critisize another, its a pity as assessors are creating harm, and there is no need for opinion when factual reports meet legal standard


Your claims of fact are complete nonsense as is proven in my case.

ACC totally ignored all the medical advice and reports, cancelled my surgery and asked the surgeon to do a different operation instead.

Doctors certainly do criticise other doctors in New Zealand. Doctors are people of science and not dissuaded from unqualified opinion. However having said that ACC and the courts are known to frequently ignore the medical facts in favour of their own perceptions of reality and assumptions then abuse their power when making decisions

0

#7 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7780
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 13 April 2019 - 11:34 AM

View PostBrucey, on 13 April 2019 - 09:04 AM, said:

Medical evidence should speak for itself

A specialsts factual report in conjunction with the reading of scans, ultrasounds, mri, ct, blood tests etc is the "Medico Legal Report"

An opinion of an acc assessor, who has not clinically examined the client, doesnt have copies of the medical evidence to compare and does not have the qualifications to make an informed report is not primary evidence

An acc assessor cannot change a clients treatment plan, prescribe meds or pain relief and can only "advise" the "corporation"

Acc assessors "examinations" are usually perfunctory and no where meet the standards that a Specialist would put you through

Also be aware, acc are notorious at leaving out medico legal reports from bundles of documents

That is the singular most important set of documents to check are in the bundles, PRIOR to court

If you have irrefutable medical evidence of the injuries, avoid "doctor shopping" you do not need another unqualified "opinion"

You are correct in that one doctor will not critisize another, its a pity as assessors are creating harm, and there is no need for opinion when factual reports meet legal standard


Brucie

Treatment Plan for a misdiagnosis of MS. What treatment plan, I never had any, Just told I had MS and carry on with work etc. Never was any follow up once decision was made, the lack of treatment is what has made an injury of whatever the problem is.

Five specialists, most paid for by me and only one to go later in the year. That will make it two years I have been trying to get this Treatment Injury sorted. BUT give ACC this, they are not heavily involved yet, ie paid for the specialist etc. AND they know I want a Treatment Injury status, but takes nine months to have a decision, but I swear it would have taken it longer if they had of been investigating it. It will be two years, that I have been doing it and a couple of 'maybe's' have been forwarded but no definites. ACC can have them if they pay for them. Not cheap, but at least is thorough.

I will approach them for Treat Injury in May/June.

Mini
0

#8 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9054
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 13 April 2019 - 06:26 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 13 April 2019 - 10:20 AM, said:

Your claims of fact are complete nonsense as is proven in my case.

ACC totally ignored all the medical advice and reports, cancelled my surgery and asked the surgeon to do a different operation instead.

Doctors certainly do criticise other doctors in New Zealand. Doctors are people of science and not dissuaded from unqualified opinion. However having said that ACC and the courts are known to frequently ignore the medical facts in favour of their own perceptions of reality and assumptions then abuse their power when making decisions



Rubbish

This isnt about YOU and your warped ideology

Stop bogging threads with your trolling and harassing people for the sake of it

What Is stated, is fact at law
0

#9 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9054
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 13 April 2019 - 06:30 PM

Mini

You will need to prove your Medical misdiagnosis has impacted on your treatment, or lack of, related to your injuries.

If you are receiving IA and that was discounted in WPI, then you will have a case
0

#10 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1542
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 15 April 2019 - 05:25 PM

View PostBrucey, on 13 April 2019 - 06:30 PM, said:

Mini

You will need to prove your Medical misdiagnosis has impacted on your treatment, or lack of, related to your injuries.

If you are receiving IA and that was discounted in WPI, then you will have a case

are you in receipt of erc , brucey ,, or are you still awiting results from the corporation ,,,,,,,,to achieve this position ,,,,,,, :rolleyes:
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9828
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 April 2019 - 05:44 PM

View PostBrucey, on 13 April 2019 - 06:26 PM, said:

Rubbish

This isnt about YOU and your warped ideology

Stop bogging threads with your trolling and harassing people for the sake of it

What Is stated, is fact at law


For goodness sake please read the judgement before you assume anything.

The experiences I have describe fit exactly with this case.

0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9828
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 April 2019 - 06:01 PM

View PostGrant-Mac, on 12 April 2019 - 07:06 AM, said:

Just a recent CA case.

Grant


What is noticeable about the case is that in every different which way the ACC have farmed out the duties to various third parties. The lawyer, Mr Sara, Seems to have had absolutely no need to be communicating with Fairway Resolution Limited in relation to this case as they have nothing whatsoever to do with legislated duty found within the ACC legislation. Does anyone know why anybody would communicate with a limited liability company as an alternative to communicating with the ACC regarding review hearing arrangements? I'm talking about what the law says. For example it seems that the reviewer was an employee of Fairway Resolution Limited thus ending any possibility of independence given the fact that Fairway have a contract with ACC.


These various third parties seem to have failed to make any files available to Mr Sara thus further confounding the appeal process. I'm quite sure the legislators intended ACC and ACC alone to be totally responsible for everything which would have prevented any possibility that files would be lost amongst the myriad of different other people involved with this case.

It seems to me that this particular case has been bogged down in a quagmire of all manner of side issues with the central issue, whether or not the person involved was incapacitated to work or not been forgotten thus there being a total breakdown and a breach of the procedures to investigate that issue and that issue alone so as to deliver a decision regarding the primary point. So clearly the claimant was injured and incapacitated to work at the beginning when the ACC accepted the claim but what changed? Did the claimant have an examination by an independent medical professional to produce a new report of any sort that challenge the existing medical reports? I couldn't see that. Should there have been any reason for Mr Sara to arrange for another medical assessment to challenge the ACC report? If no backup medical report was coming from the claimant then the decision should have focused on existing medical evidence on file rather than throwing out a case because of all manner of other issues not related to the central issue. What has happened to the investigative approach required by legislation? Why was the reviewer not an independent reviewer?



0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users